The chronology of hand stencils in European Palaeolithic rock art ...

JASs ReportsJournal of Anthropological Sciences

Vol. 93 (2015), pp. 135-152

the JASs is published by the Istituto Italiano di Antropologia www.isita-org.com

The chronology of hand stencils in European Palaeolithic rock art: implications of new U-series results from El Castillo Cave (Cantabria, Spain)

Marcos García-Diez1, Daniel Garrido2, Dirk. L. Hoffmann3, Paul B. Pettitt4, Alistair W. G. Pike5 & Joao Zilhão6

1) Departamento de Geografía, Prehistoria y Arquelogía, Facultad de Letras, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, c/ Tomás y Valiente s/n, 01006 Vitoria-Gazteiz, Álava, Spain e-mail: [email protected]

2) Cuevas Prehistóricas de Cantabria, Sociedad Regional de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 39670 Puente Viesgo, Cantabria, Spain

3) Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Department of Human Evolution, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, German

4) Department of Archaeology, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK.

5) Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Avenue Campus, Highfield Road, Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK

6) University of Barcelona/ICREA, Departament de Prehistòria, Història Antiga i Arqueologia, “Grup de Recerca” SERP SGR2014-00108, c/ Montalegre 6, 08001 Barcelona, Spain

Summary - The hand stencils of European Paleolithic art tend to be considered of pre-Magdalenian age and scholars have generally assigned them to the Gravettian period. At El Castillo Cave, application of U-series dating to calcite accretions has established a minimum age of 37,290 years for underlying red hand stencils, implying execution in the earlier part of the Aurignacian if not beforehand. Together with the series of red disks, one of which has a minimum age of 40,800 years, these motifs lie at the base of the El Castillo parietal stratigraphy. The similarity in technique and colour support the notion that both kinds of artistic manifestations are synchronic and define an initial, non-figurative phase of European cave art. However, available data indicate that hand stencils continued to be painted subsequently. Currently, the youngest, reliably dated examples fall in the Late Gravettian, approximately 27,000 years ago.

Keywords - Hand stencils, Origin of graphic behavior, Uranium series, Palaeolithic rock art, Chronology, Europe, Upper Palaeolithic.

Introduction

In recent years, direct radiometric dating of most Palaeolithic parietal art has been based on the AMS radiocarbon method (Valladas et al., 2001, 2013), the application of which is limited to figures drawn with charcoal. With regard to

hand stencils, therefore, this method has been used exclusively to date black examples, yet the greater majority of these are red and were made with a pigment based on iron minerals (Pettit & Pike, 2007). Developments in the application of the geo-chronological method of Uranium-series dating, however, now make it possible to

doi: 10.4436/jass.89003e-pub ahead of pr intdoi 10.4436/jass.93004

136 Hand stencils in European Palaeolithic rock art

measure the age of very small samples of calcite stratigraphically associated with rock art (Pike et al., 2005, 2012; García-Diez et al., 2013a). Maximum and minimum dates for the creation of Palaeolithic engravings, paintings, drawings or even sculptures can thus be established when suitable calcite deposits exist.

The first published synthesis of Palaeolithic rock art (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911) suggested that hand stencils were relatively old, placing them in the Aurignacian-Perigordian (approximately from 40,000 to 22,000 BP). This opinion was subsequently maintained by H. Breuil (1952). Later, A. Leroi-Gourhan (1965) proposed that these motifs were mostly of pre-Magdalenian age but that some could belong in his style IV ancien (Early Magdalenian). Later schemes have added nuances or simply accepted Breuil and Leroi-Gourhan’s hypotheses. A. R. Verbrugge (1969) claimed that they were produced over a long period (from the Early or Middle Gravettian to the Late Magdalenian). R. Balbín & A. Moure (1981), and F. Jordá & J. L. Sanchidrián (1992) posited the existence of Magdalenian hand motifs, and Ripoll et al. (1999, pp. 113-114) suggested that some of these motifs were produced in the Late Magdalenian. C. González Sainz (1999) reas-serted a pre-Magdalenian (essentially Gravettian) chronology, while others (Snow, 2006) assumed a generic pre-Solutrean chronology. Lorblanchet (2010) claimed they are all Gravettian, reflecting the present-day consensus —largely a by-product of the application of AMS radiocarbon dating to parietal art— that this kind of motif was produced mainly (if not exclusively) in the Gravettian.

Here, we discuss data provided by the recent U-series dating of calcite overgrowths associ-ated with red hand stencils in El Castillo Cave (Cantabria, Spain), and assess it in the context of the cave’s parietal art. We then consider the El Castillo pattern in the context of the direct and indirect chronological information available for the hand stencils of European cave art as a whole: namely AMS radiocarbon and U-series determinations, superimposition of figures, inclusion in or covering by sedimentary deposits, immediate archaeological context, and evidence from art mobilier.

The El Castillo hand stencils

El Castillo Cave is located in Monte Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria, Spain) (Fig. 1), a coni-cal hill that stands out in the landscape and would have been a landmark for prehistoric populations. The hill overlooks the valley of the River Pas, and can be reached quickly from the valley bottom. Set in an area of high biotope diversity, rich in natural resources, the place would have been of great stra-tegic and economic importance, as indeed implied by its outstanding archaeological record. Featuring rich evidence of human occupation since at least 150,000 BP, the hill’s material culture and parietal art have played a key role in the reconstruction of the society and lifeways of European Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. In addition, five of its caves —El Castillo (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911), Las Monedas (Ripoll, 1972), Las Chimeneas (González Echegaray, 1974), La Pasiega (Breuil et al., 1913; González Sainz & Balbín, 2010) and La Cantera (García-Diez, 2010a)— contain Palaeolithic art, forming a site complex with unique conditions for the understanding of the symbolic behaviour of Palaeolithic societies.

El Castillo Cave was discovered in 1903 and inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2008. It is the most important of the Monte Castillo caves. From top to bottom, the archaeolog-ical sequence (Cabrera, 1984; Cabrera et al., 2006) begins with Medieval and Chalcolithic deposits, which overlie an Azilian layer. Flowstone separates these levels from the Late Magdalenian ones, which yielded a large bone tool assemblage (uniserial and biserial harpoons, sagaies with circular cross-sections, and a perforated bâton with an engraved figure of a stag). An Early Magdalenian level fol-lows, which documents intense human occupa-tion, with numerous portable art objects including scapulae engraved mostly with figures of red deer hinds (Almagro, 1976). Below this level there is evidence of Solutrean, Gravettian and Aurignacian activity. The Mousterian sequence is long and com-prises several levels, over the course of which one can observe the technical and cultural variability displayed by regional Neanderthal populations. The basal levels contain Acheulian lithics.

www.isita-org.com

137M. García-Diez et al.

El Castillo Cave contains one of the most significant Palaeolithic art ensembles of Western Europe (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911; González García, 2001; Groenen et al., 2012). The interior of the cave, with numerous engravings, drawings and paintings —some of which enhance the nat-ural shapes of wall and stalagmites to produce a volumetric, sculpture-like effect— is an “encyclo-paedia of Palaeolithic cave art” as it covers almost the full range of the period’s themes, techniques and styles (García-Diez & Gutiérrez, 2010b).

The ensemble includes some 60 hand sten-cils, located mostly in the initial and middle parts of the cave (Fig. 2), between the Panel of the Polychromes and the Panel of the Hands (including an adjacent side passage). There are a few examples deeper in the cave, the innermost one being found in the Gallery of the Disks. All these stencils were made in red using the tech-nique of spraying the pigment over the hand by blowing it from the mouth, directly or by means of a hollowed instrument.

Pike et al. (2012) obtained five dates for calcite samples covering two hand stencils in the Panel of the Hands (Tab. 1). For a detailed descrip-tion of the analytical method, sampling proce-dure and quality control, see Pike et al. (2012)- supplementary materials, and García-Diez et al. (2013a). These results provide a terminus ante quem for the production of the paintings.

For one of these hands (Fig. 3A), located in the main part of the panel (Frieze F: in Alcalde del Río et al., 1911, plate LXV, top LXVI: Fig. 105), two ante quem dates (2σ errors) were obtained from two different calcite overgrowths: 37,630±340 years (sample CAST-6; O-82), and 25,020±290 years (sample CAST-5; O-90). Since both dates are minimum ages, we can conclude that this hand stencil was painted at least 37,290 years ago with a 95.4% probability, and at least 37,130 years ago with a 99.7% probability.

The other stencil (Fig. 3B) is located in the side passage to the left of the Panel of the Hands (Frieze G, in Alcalde del Río et al. 1911, Fig. 105). The calcite film that covers it was sampled in two different points. Sample CAST-8 (O-58) gave a result of 24,340±120 years. The upper part

of sample CAST-9 (subsample CAST-9A) gave a result of 20,810±120 years (O-64) while its lower part (subsample CAST-9B) gave a stratigraphically consistent result of 22,260±110 years (O-65). Consequently, this hand stencil was painted at least 24,220 years ago with a 95.4% probability, and at least 24,160 years ago with a 99.7% probability.

The earliest of these termini falls at the bound-ary between the Aurignacian I and the Aurignacian II in Europe (Banks et al., 2013a,b), while the later falls at the boundary between the Terminal Gravettian and the Proto-Solutrean of Iberia and south-western France (Zilhão et al., 1999; Renard, 2011). Is it possible that these hand sten-cils were painted at two different times? One must remember that these are minimum ages only –not absolute ages– and all of them are at least 24,000 years old yet could all be at least 37,000 years old. Their similar appearance (they are both complete, with palm, fingers and thumb, wrist, and part of the forearm), size, and technique (spray painting), as well as their spatial proximity (in two sectors of the same Panel of the Hands), suggest that they were produced within a relatively short time span. In addition, the two stencils are in all these respects very similar to the other motifs of the same kind found in the panel. Therefore, it seems

Fig. 1 - Location of El Castillo cave.


Fig. 2 - El Castillo cave: topographic plan and distribution of hand stencils.

www.isita-org.com


reasonable to attribute the ensemble of hand sten-cils in the Panel of the Hands to a time around or prior to 37,000 years ago.

From an archaeological point of view, this attribution is contradicted neither by the parietal stratigraphy of the El Castillo art in general nor by that of the Panel of the Hands in particular. Since the time of the first study (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911), the Panel of the Hands has been used in chronological models of Palaeolithic art based on the superimposition of figures, the comparison with art mobilier, and on notions of stylistic change through time. Both early (e.g., Breuil) and later (e.g., Leroi-Gourhan) scholars have observed that the hand stencils and disks from El Castillo form the base of the panel’s artistic sequence (Breuil, 1952; Leroi-Gourhan, 1965). Above them were painted the first figura-tive representations in yellowish and orange hues (mainly bison), followed by signs (in yellow and red, of medium and large size), animals (mostly hinds) with multiple-line outlines and some-times with striated interior shading, and, finally, red dots, black bison and engravings with single-line outlines.

This graphic stratigraphy, which in all likeli-hood covers a long period of time, demonstrates that hand stencils were among the first examples of parietal art to be produced at El Castillo. The

hypothesis that all of the hand stencils of the Panel of the Hands are more than 37,000 years old is also consistent with the fact that, on the basis of comparisons with well dated examples of art mobilier, an age of 29,000-27,000 cal BP has been proposed for the superimposed yellowish/orange bison (García-Diez et al., 2008; García-Diez & Ochoa, 2012). Elsewhere in the cave, the Panel of the Hands’ graphic stratigraphy is repli-cated in the Panel of the Polychromes, where hand stencils are located under a black bison dated to the Magdalenian by radiocarbon (Valladas et al., 2001) and under red animal figures for which a pre-Magdalenian chronology is widely accepted.

Chronological information of European hand stencils

Chronological information is available for a total of 33 different instances of hand stencils of the European Palaeolithic. This information is summarized in appendix, and discussed below at greater length.

U-series determinations taken from calcite samplesThe only U-series determinations of calcite

directly covering hand motifs are those from El Castillo Cave described above.

SAMPLE BIG-UTH

230TH/2 38U

234/ 238U

230TH/ 232TH

UNCORRECTED AGE (KA)

CORRECTED AGE (KA)

YOUNGER AGE LIMIT (KA)(MINIMUM AGE)

O-82 (CAST-6) 0.5112±0.0029 1.6970±0.0035 48.81±0.49 38.15±0.27 37.63±0.34 37.29

O-90 (CAST-5) 0.38160±0.0028 1.8031±0.0034 36.81±0.34 25.51±0.21 25.02±0.29 24.73

O-58 (CAST-8) 0.5272±0.0020 2.5774±0.0049 222.70±0.49 24.42±0.11 24.34±0.12 24.22

O-64 (CAST-9A) 0.4244±0.0016 2.3851±0.0041 79.67±0.16 21.00±0.095 20.81±0.12 20.69

O-65 (CAST-9B) 0.4510±0.0017 2.3913±0.0046 145.57±0.28 22.37±0.10 22.26±0.11 22.15

Tab. 1 - Results of U-series disequilibrium dating for El Castillo samples. All isotopic ratios are activity ratios; errors are at 2σ. Ages are corrected for detritus by using an assumed 232Th/238U activity of 1.250 ± 0.625 and 230Th/238U and 234U/238U at equilibrium.


Fig. 3 - U-series dates stratigraphically associated with hand stencils from El Castillo Cave: (A) hand in Frieze F; (B) hand in and Frieze G.

www.isita-org.com


A calcite sample taken a few centimetres away from a hand motif (Fig. VI/29) in the Galeria Inferior of La Garma Cave has been U-series-dated to 33,000±2,000 BP (Arias & Ontañón, 2008); however, no direct stratigraphic relation exists between the painting and the calcite, and this determination cannot therefore be used to constrain the age of the stencil. The same applies to another red hand from La Garma (Arias & Ontañón, 2008, Fig. IX/17), for which the lack of direct stratigraphic relationship invalidates age claims based on the TL dating of adjacent stalag-mitic material.

AMS radiocarbon determinationsMost radiocarbon determinations concern-

ing hand stencils were obtained from three such black motifs in Cosquer Cave (Valladas et al., 2001; Clottes et al., 1997, 2005).• M7. Right hand with folded or “mutilated”

fingers: 27,110±430 years BP (purified char-coal fraction; analysed carbon: 0.86 mg), 27,110±400 years BP (purified charcoal fraction) and 26,180±370 years BP (humic fraction; analysed carbon: 0.44 mg).

• M12. Left hand with intact and out-stretched fingers: 24,840±340 years BP (pu-rified charcoal fraction) and 23,150±620 years BP (humic fraction).

• M19. Left hand with folded small, ring and fore-fingers: 27,740±410 years BP (purified charcoal fraction).

A further date is available for a stencilled black hand in La Fuente del Salín (González Morales & Moure, 2008): 18,200±70 years BP (purified charcoal fraction; δ13C of -24.5‰).

Stratigraphic relationship with a sedimentary depositExcavations in Abri Labattut documented two

Gravettian levels and a Solutrean level, separated by sterile deposits. The Gravettian levels (with Noailles burins, La Gravette points and micro-gravettes) contained limestone blocks collapsed from the walls and roof as a result of natural pro-cesses. These blocks displayed remains of black and red paint, as well as pecked and engraved

lines (Breuil & Obermaier, 1935, pp. 151, 154). One of these limestone blocks bears a black hand stencil (Delluc & Delluc, 1982-1983), which must, therefore, be of at least Gravettian age. This age assignment is consistent with the general similarity of the Labattut art with that found in similarly fallen blocks recovered in Aurignacian deposits from nearby rock shelters (cf. Delluc & Delluc, 1991).

Stratigraphic relationship with directly dated motifsTwo AMS radiocarbon dates (purified char-

coal fraction) exist for two figures in Magdalenian style of El Castillo’s Panel of the Polychromes (Moure & González Sainz, 2000).• Bison 18a (superimposed on two red hinds

and two red hand stencils): 13,520±130 years BP, 13,060±200 years BP, and 12,620±110 years BP.

• Bison 18b (superimposed on three, perhaps four red hand stencils): 12,910±180 years BP.The Panel of the Dotted Horses of Pech

Merle Cave was produced in the course of five phases (Lorblanchet, 2010). One of the horses is found under a black hand stencil; a sample from this horse was dated to 24,640±390 years BP (Lorblanchet et al., 1995).

In the Gallery of the Red Panels of Chauvet Cave, the black outline of a possible mammoth found under a red hand stencil has been dated to 26,340±330 years BP (humic acid fraction; Feruglio et al., 2011).

Immediate archaeological contextIn Gargas Cave, a bone fragment placed in

a natural crack next to Hand 4 in Panel 4 of the Entrance Chamber was dated to 26,860±460 years BP (Clottes et al., 1992) though again there is no demonstrable relationship between the bone fragment and art.

In Pech Merle, a piece of charcoal collected from the floor opposite the Panel of the Dotted Horses was dated to 11,380±390 years BP (Lorblanchet, 1981), while a reindeer metacarpal with cut marks was dated to 18,400±350 years BP (Valladas et al., 1990). The “rares, infimes et


dispersées” pieces of charcoal, bone (broken splin-ters, mainly of reindeer and horse) and lithic artefacts have been related to a “few” prehistoric visits to the cave.

In the Grande Grotte d’Arcy, a bone found at the foot of a panel with partially represented hands was dated to 26,700±410 years BP (Baffier & Girard, 1995).

Several pieces of charcoal on the floor of the Gallery of the Red Dots Panel in Grotte Chauvet have been dated. Two results were obtained for a piece collected at the foot of the panel with hand motifs: 26,360±290 BP and 26,250±280 years BP (Valladas et al., 2001). The two results are simi-lar and overlap at two sigma between 31,247 and 30,499 years calBP. A hard-to-interpret, anthropic pile of calcite fragments was documented opposite this panel (Geneste, 2005, p. 136).

A series of red dots, a black stencilled hand, and a red hand-print have been documented in the final part of Le Moulin de Laguenay Cave (Pigeaud & Primault, 2007). An archaeologi-cal excavation at the foot of the panel revealed two hearths, three lithic artefacts, fragments of stalactites (possibly used for the manufacture of pendants), and numerous fragments of the wall bearing red and black pigment that may be asso-ciated with the parietal paintings. One of the two hearths was dated to 26,770±380 years BP.

A chamber in Les Garennes Cave displays a black hand stencil associated with red dots, black lines and remains of non-figurative red paintings (Airvaux et al., 2006). The remains of a 10 to 20 year old human (vertebrae, sacrum, ribs, coccyx, femur and tibia) were found on the floor. The skeleton, attributed to Homo sapiens, was not complete and the skull was located in a nearby narrow passage. Two of the ribs were dated, to 27,110±210 years BP and 26,790±190 years BP (Henry-Gambier et al., 2007). Their pooled mean radiocarbon age of 26,934±141 years BP corresponds to the 95.4% probability interval of 31,089-31,471 years calBP.

In La Fuente del Salín (González Morales & Moure, 2008), a hearth was documented in Level 2, at the foot of an ensemble of red hand stencils. Dated to 22,340+510/-480 years BP

and 22,580±100 years BP (δ13C of -26.6‰), this hearth was associated with fragments of red pig-ment, of a similar hue to the hand motifs. One bone fragment recovered on the floor elsewhere in the same chamber was dated to 23,190±900 years BP (δ13C of -21.5‰).

Art mobilierHand motifs are usually thought to be found

exclusively in rock or parietal art. However, in Level B II of the Abri Morin (Deffarge et al., 1975), in association with Late Magdalenian material, there was a horn fragment engraved with the palms of two hands and showing the fingers and nails.

Discussion

Chronology: quality, limitations and synthesisThe chronological information available for

hand motifs in European Palaeolithic art is thus varied in source as much as in significance. In a few cases we have radiometric dates obtained directly on pigment itself (i.e. AMS radiocarbon dates for black hands); mostly, however, chronological information is indirect, deriving from stratigraph-ically related radiometric dates (U-series ages for over- or underlying calcite, AMS radiocarbon dates for superimposed or superposed black fig-ures), the age of covering deposits, or the age of the immediate archaeological context. There is a single art mobilier example concerning a related theme.

Currently, the dating of calcite associated with rock art provides secure minimum ages only at El Castillo. One of the hand stencils in the Panel of the Hands is more than 37,290 years old and there is good reason to extrapolate this age to all the other hands in the same panel.

AMS radiocarbon determinations provide an age for the death of the wood that formed the charcoal. Assuming a short period between the time of death of the organism whence the charcoal derives and the time of painting, that age, if accurate, is also that of the paintings’ production. Assessment of the determinations

www.isita-org.com


for the hand motifs in Grotte Cosquer suggests, however, that not all are equally reliable because of problems with contamination revealed by the differences in apparent ages of the humic and humin fractions (Valladas et al., 2003). For instance, in the case of Hand M12, the humic acid fraction result (23,150±620 years BP) is statistically younger than that of the purified charcoal fraction (24,840±340 years BP). There remains therefore the possibility that unremoved contaminants were present in the purified frac-tion and, therefore, that the corresponding result may also be too young.

The youngest result for sample M7 (26,180±330 years BP) is for its humic acid frac-tion; the purified charcoal fraction was dated to 27,110±390 years BP. Both are statistically iden-tical, and the latter result is virtually identical to the date of 27,110±350 years BP obtained for the purified fraction of another sample taken on the same motif, strengthening the case for the M7 hand to have been accurately dated by these results. This date also agrees with the puri-fied charcoal fraction of the Hand M19, so it is likely that the execution of both hands took place around 32 ka calBP.

Comparison of the three hands dated at Cosquer shows the following similarities and differences: a) M12 and M19 are associated spa-tially as they are both located in Group III of the same panel (Clottes & Courtin 1994, pp. 72-73), while M7 is located in Group VI of a dif-ferent panel; b) all three hands were painted with black charcoal using the spraying technique; c) phalanges are missing from some of the fingers in both the M19 and M7 hands, while M12 is a complete hand; and, d) M12 is associated with “profondes stries apparemment incisées avec un outil de silex surchargent cette main à la base des doigts” (Clottes & Courtin, 1994, p. 72), while M19 and M7 display neither striations nor engravings.

The differences in anatomical rendering and in the presence of overlying striations and engrav-ings may be regarded as supporting the contem-poraneity of M19 and M7, on one hand, and a different age for M12, on the other; however, the radiocarbon data are insufficient to support such

a case. Therefore, the contemporaneity of these three hands cannot be eliminated, and perhaps should not, considering the spatial proximity of M12 and M19.

Regarding the direct radiocarbon date obtained on the Fuente del Salín hand, it has been stated that “it is not impossible that this sample could have been rejuvenated by organic contamination, in an environment with free air circulation and presence of numerous insects on the cave walls, owing to proximity to the sur-face” (In the original Spanish: “no es imposible que esta muestra se haya rejuvenecido por contami-nación orgánica, en un ámbito con amplia circu-lación de aire y presencia de abundantes insectos en las paredes por proximidad al exterior”; González Morales & Moure, 2008, p. 81). One can also add that the sample was taken in a sector with thick calcite overgrowths, indicating the percola-tion of water potentially rich in organic acids. Therefore, this result should be considered as a minimum age only.

In sum, considering only the reliable results, available direct radiocarbon dates for the colouring matter used in hand motifs indicates the 30-33 ka calBP time span for their execution. There are no dates for the Gravettian occupation levels of Abri Labattut, but from the chronology of the technocomplex in France we can none-theless assign a minimum age between 25,000 and 35,000 years calBP to the hand found on the fallen block recovered in those levels; this minimum age is consistent with the chronology indicated by the direct dates obtained elsewhere.

In combination with the ages obtained for associated motifs that have been directly dated, the position of hands in parietal stratigraphies can also yield indirect chronological information, namely at El Castillo, where, however, the relevant radio-carbon measurements present certain problems. Two of the three dates for Bison 18a are statisti-cally the same and place its execution in the 15-17 ka calBP interval, but the third is significantly younger and falls in the same time range (14.2-15.4 ka calBP) as the single result for Bison 18b. This discrepancy may indicate that all are affected by residual contamination but, even as minimum


ages only, these results still provide a terminus ante quem of 14,000 years calBP ago for the produc-tion of the underlying motifs that is consistent with the direct dating evidence. The black line (a possible simplification of a mammoth) in Grotte Chauvet could in turn provide a terminus post quem of 30,423 years calBP for the overlying hand but the result obtained for this line was measured on the humic acid fraction and its accuracy must therefore be treated as an open issue. In fact, this sample is probably just a particular example of the issues of accuracy and association affecting the dating of Chauvet, as discussed by a number of authors (e.g., Pettit et al., 2009).

Concerning the information provided by the immediate archaeological context, the Fuente del Salín hearth and bone dates are consistent, and indicate use of the cave during the 28th mil-lennium calBP. Their functional relationship with the paintings, although strengthened by the similarity in composition between the pig-ment on the walls and the pigment remains on the floor, must be treated, however, as a working hypothesis, not a certainty. In Gargas Cave, the dates obtained for samples from the excavation performed in the Chamber of the Hands and for a bone fragment inserted in the walls of the GES Sector attest a series of occupations in the range of 30-35 ka calBP (Foucher et al., 2011). Intense human activity took place in the decorated area from where the bone-on-the-wall comes, and is possibly dated by this sample to between 32 and 30.5 ka calBP.

At Pech Merle, one of the two “context” dates (11,380±390 years BP) is in fact a mini-mum age only, as noted by the dating laboratory: “Il ná pu être procédé à lénlèvement des parties humiques, cést pourquoi peut-être, l´âge est mani-festement trop jeune: en fait devant des quantiés aussi faibles de matière, la moindre pollution peut avoir de grandes conséquences. Le résultat est donc à considerer comme un âge minima.” (Évin in Lorblanchet, 2010, p. 19). The other result indi-cates human visits around 22,000 years BP that do not necessarily relate to the art in the Panel of the Dotted Horses, where the graphic stratig-raphy indicates that we are dealing with a single

composition and, hence, an age of around 30 ka calBP for the hand stencils therein (accepting the validity of the results for the dotted horses, pro-duced a long time ago and by current standards best considered as potentially inaccurate). At the sites of Arcy, Chauvet, Le Moulin de Laguenay and Les Garennes no chronology is available for the art itself. The archaeological context is dated by five results placing human visits to these five caves in the 31.8-30.5 ka calBP range, the same as at Gargas.

Taken in isolation, the available contextual information indicates human visits to caves with hand stencils during the Early Gravettian (seven out of the ten radiocarbon determinations), the Middle-Late Gravettian (two determinations), and the Solutrean. Only at Fuente del Salín, however, is there some evidence to link the dated archaeological remains to the art on the walls. As cautioned by Clottes (1993), the human activi-ties implicated in such visits could correspond to numerous situations not necessarily related with the parietal art either in time or in purpose.

No formal or stylistic comparisons can be made for the hand stencils produced with the spraying technique, as the outline depends on the anatomy of each hand (García-Diez & Garrido, 2013b). In contrast, stylistic variations can be appreciated in art mobilier because the production is associated with an artistic deci-sion, as illustrated by the characterisation of the finger nails in the hands engraved on the Abri Morin horn core. The lack of intrinsic stylistic information thus prevents the use of compari-sons with art mobilier as a means to assess the age of the parietal hands, while the fact that the Abri Morin object remains an isolated instance means that the thematic coincidence is in all likelihood devoid of chronological implications.

In conclusion, the information available is scant. The U-series dating of calcite shows that the production of hand stencils began in Aurignacian I times or earlier. The radiocarbon determina-tions define a period centred on the first half of the Gravettian. The combined radiometric infor-mation is consistent with that provided by the single instance of direct stratigraphic relationship

www.isita-org.com


with an archaeological deposit, which indicates a minimum age in the Gravettian. A possible execution in the Solutrean and Magdalenian is unsupported by this evidence, and the couple of instances where an archaeological context of such age exists in caves with stencilled hands are insuf-ficient to contradict the pattern arising out of the instances of direct relationship between motifs and chronological proxies.

Parietal hand stencils and the first expressions of non-figurative Palaeolithic art

As noted above, Palaeolithic hand stencils constitute a theme conditioned in their form by the specific anatomy of the hand that the artists used as a stencil to paint around. Therefore, they are not susceptible to displaying variations in their form that respond to an artistic decision, ones that could be used to determine styles. In this respect, from the thematic point of view, the hand motifs are natural figures (i.e. they refer to a real object in nature, like the animal figures), but from the graphic or artistic viewpoint they are non-figurative representations.

The information currently available, or at least the terminus ante quem dates derived from calcite overgrowths, places the origin of hand stencilling in a time range no later than the Early Aurignacian. At El Castillo, disks (or large dots) were spray-painted in a reddish-violet colour in a similar way to the hand stencils. In addi-tion, both themes occupy a similar position in the graphic stratigraphy of the cave, as they are always at the bottom of all instances of superim-position. Therefore, the two themes seem to be associated, even though most hand stencils are in the Panel of Hands, in the initial part of the cave, and most disks are in the Gallery of the Disks, in its central part. Unless future chemical analysis of the colouring matter produces evidence sug-gesting otherwise, the parsimonious reading of this evidence is that the two themes are broadly synchronic. Given the date of 41,400±570 years (Pike et al., 2012) for calcite covering one of the disks in the Panel of the Hands, the hand sten-cils are probably as old. It may therefore be pro-posed that, in Cantabrian Spain, Palaeolithic art

began with a non-figurative phase, as figurative representations are not documented until about 32,000 years ago (García-Diez & Ochoa, 2012).

Given that 41,800 years is but a minimum age for the earliest art, we cannot rule out the possibility that its beginnings in fact predate the Aurignacian, and that the earliest art was made by Neanderthals. The origin of non-figurative traditions in other contexts may be traced back to earlier times (García-Diez et al., 2013a). A reap-praisal of decorated art mobilier and decorated bone tools older than the Aurignacian (d’Errico et al., 2003; Zilhão, 2007, 2011; García-Diez et al., 2013c) demonstrates that linear motifs (mainly simple lines or series of lines, more exceptionally geometric shapes) become relatively more com-mon from about 60-50 ka years onwards. The potential for this early non-figurative tradition to include painting disks and hand stencils in caves is a relatively straightforward hypothesis to test, and would be confirmed by calcite ages predat-ing the arrival of modern humans into Northern Spain at around 42-43 ka.

Conclusion

Hand motifs are non-figurative representa-tions, as their form is generated by the spraying of pigment over a natural stencil. For this reason, they cannot be subjected to formal and stylistic analysis, as the anatomy conditions the form.

Based on the available information, these motifs were produced over a long period of time, beginning at least in the early Aurignacian (>37,000 years ago) and lasting until the Middle Gravettian (approximately 27,000 years calBP), as indicated both by direct AMS radiocarbon dating and by stratigraphic relationship with U-series-dated calcite overgrowths or with cover-ing archaeological deposits. No directly relevant data support at present a later chronology for the hand stencils of European Palaeolithic parietal art.

Under an assumption of contemporaneity with the red disks from El Castillo Cave, the production of hand motifs goes back to >40,800 years; both themes would therefore represent the origin of


graphic expression in northern Spain. The fact that instances of non-figurative themes are known in earlier, Middle Paleolithic and Transitional archae-ological contexts suggests that a similar chronology is conceivable for at least some of the hands sten-cilled on the walls of El Castillo Cave. The implica-tion is that at least some of them those hands well be of Neanderthals, a hypothesis whose testing is the object of ongoing research on the chronology, mineralogy and biogeochemistry of the motifs and of the pigments used to paint them.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a grant to AWGP from the Natural Environmental Research Council (NE/F000510/1) and a grant (Climatic background and chronology of Iberian Upper Paleolithic Cave Art -CGL2011-27187-) to DLH from the Ministe-rio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spanish Government). The research of MGD was supported by the High Yield Research Group of Prehistory (IT622-13). We are grateful to Carolyn C. Taylor who performed the sample preparation, and assisted in collecting samples in the field along with Catherine C. Hinds, Stephanie S. White and Stephen S. Payne. We thank the Government of Cantabria for granting permis-sion to sample calcite deposits stratigraphically asso-ciated with cave art.

References

Airvaux J., Aujoulat N., Baratin, J. F., Veauval C. & Henry-Gambier D. 2006. Découverte dún réseau karstique orné au lieu-dit Les Garennes, commune de Vilhonneur, Charente. Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, 13: 25-35.

Alcalde del Río H., Breuil H. & Sierra L. 1911. Les Cavernes de la Région Cantabrique. Chené, Mónaco.

Almagro M. 1976. Los omoplatos decorados de la cueva de El Castillo, Puente Viesgo, Santander. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 33: 9-112.

Arias P. & Ontañón R. 2008. Zona arqueológi-ca de La Garma (Omoño, Ribamontán al

Monte). Campañas 2000-2003. In: Actuaciones Arqueológicas en Cantabria 2000-2003, pp. 43-60. Consejería de Cultura, Turismo y Deporte, Gobierno de Cantabria, Santander.

Baffier D. & Girard M. 1995. Les sanctuaires s’Arcy-sur-Cure. Archéologie Nouvelle, 17: 47-49.

Balbín R. de & Moure A. 1981. Pinturas y graba-dos de la cueva de Tito Bustillo. El sector orien-tal. Studia Archaeologica 66. Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.

Banks W.E., d’Errico F. & Zilhão J., 2013a. Human-climate interaction during the Early Upper Paleolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian. J. Hum. Evol., 64: 39-55.

Banks W. E., dÉrrico F. & Zilhao J. 2013b. Revisiting the chronology of the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian in Europe: A reply to Higham et al.’s comments on Banks et al. (2013). J. Hum. Evol., dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.08.004

Breuil H. 1952. Quatre cents siècles dárt pariétal. Les cavernes ornées de láge du renne. Centre dÉtudes de Documentation Préhistoriques, Paris - Montignac.

Breuil H. & Obermaier H. 1935. La cueva de Altamira en Santillana del Mar. Tipografía de Archivos, Madrid.

Breuil H., Obermaier H. & Alcalde del Río H. 1913. La Pasiega à Puente Viesgo (Santander, Espagne). Chené, Mónaco.

Cabrera V. 1984. El yacimiento de la cueva de El Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Santander). Biblioteca Prehistorica Hispana XXII, Madrid.

Cabrera V., Bernaldo de Quirós F. & Maíllo J. M. (eds) 2006. En el centenario de la Cueva de El Castillo: el ocaso de los Neandertales. Centro aso-ciado a la UNED en Cantabria, Santander.

Clottes J. 1993. Contexte archéologique interne. In: Lárt Parietal Paléolithique. Techniques et méthodes d´étude, pp. 49-58. Ministère de lÉnseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Paris.

Clottes J. & Courtin J. 1994. La grotte Cosquer. Seuil, Paris.

www.isita-org.com


Clottes J., Courtin J., Valladas H., Cachier N., Mercier N. & Arnold M. 1992a. La grotte Cosquer datée. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr., 89: 230-234.

Clottes J., Valladas H., Cachier N. & Arnold M. 1992b. Des dates pour Niaux et Gargas. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr., 89: 270-274.

Clottes J., Courtin J., Collina-Girard J., Arnold M. & Valladas H. 1997. News from Cosquer cave: climatic studies, recording, sampling, dates. Antiquity, 71: 321-326.

Clottes J., Courtin J. & Vanrell L. 2005. Cosquer Redecouvert. Seuil, Paris.

d’Errico F., Henshilwood Ch., Lawson G., Vanhaeren M., Tillier A.-M., Soressi M., Bresson, F., Maureille B., Nowell A., Lakarra J., Backwell L. & Julien M. 2003. Archaeological Evidence for the Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and Music — An Alternative Multidisciplinary Perspective. J. World Prehist., 17: 1-70.

Deffarge R., Laurent P. & Sonneville-Bordes D. 1975. Art mobilier du Magdalénien supé-rieur de lábri Morin à Pessac-sur-Dordogne (Gironde). Gallia Préhist., 18: 1-64.

Delluc B. & Delluc G. 1982-1983. La main né-gative gravettienne de lábri Labattut à Sergeac (Dordogne). Antiquités Nationales, 14/15: 27-33.

Feruglio V., Aujoulat N. & Jauvert J. 2011. Lárt pariétal gravettien, ce quíl révèle de la société en complément de la culture matérielle”. In: À la re-cherche des identités gravettiennes: actualités, ques-tionnements et perspectives, pp. 243-255. Mémoire LII, Société Préhistorique Française, Paris.

Foucher P., San Juan C. & Oberlin C. 2011. Les niveaux d’occupation gravettiens de Gargas (Hautes-Pyrénées): nouvelles données chron-ostratigraphiques. In N. Goutas N., L. Klaric, D. Pesesse & P. Guillermin (eds) : À la recherche des identités gravettiennes: actualités, questionne-ments et perspectives, pp. 373-385. Mémoire LII, Société Préhistorique Française, Paris.

García-Diez M. 2010a. La Cantera I. In B. Malpelo & I. Castanedo (eds): Las Cuevas con Arte Paleolítico en Cantabria, pp. 359. Asociación Cántabra para la Defensa del Patrimonio Subterráneo, Santander.

García-Diez M. & Gutiérrez R. 2010b. El Castillo I. In B. Malpelo e I. Castanedo (eds): Las Cuevas con Arte Paleolítico en Cantabria, pp. 179-190. Asociación Cántabra para la Defensa del Patrimonio Subterráneo, Santander.

García-Diez M. & Ochoa B. 2012. Implicaciones en la secuenciación cronológica rupestre del grafismo mueble gravetiense peninsular. Veleia, 29: 359-372.

García-Diez M., Eguizabal J. & Arrizabalaga A. 2008. La Cueva de Venta Laperra. El grafismo parietal paleolítico y la definición de territorios gráficos en la región cantábrica. Ayuntamiento de Carranza, Bilbao.

García-Diez M., Hoffmann D. L., Zilhão J., de las Heras C., Lasheras J. A., Montes R. & Pike A. W. G. 2013a. Uranium series dating reveals a long sequence of rock art at Altamira Cave (Santillana del Mar, Cantabria). J. Archaeol. Sci., 40: 4098-4106.

García-Diez M. & Garrido D. 2013b. La cronología de las manos parietales en el arte Paleolítico. In C. Heras, J.A. Lasheras, A. Arrizabalaga & M. Rasilla (eds): Pensando el Gravetiense: nuevos datos para la región cantábri-ca en su contexto peninsular y pirenaico, pp. 492-500. Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira, Monografías 23. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid.

García-Diez M., Ochoa B. & Barandiarán I. 2013c. Neanderthal graphic behaviour: the pecked pebble from Axlor rockshelter. J. Anthropol. Res., 69: 397-410.

Geneste J. M. 2005. Lárchéologie des vestiges matériels dans la grotte Chauvet-Pont-dÁrc. In: Recherches pluridisciplinaires dans la grotte Chauvet. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr., 102: 135-144.

Gonzalez García R. 2001. Art et espace dans les grottes paléolithiques cantabriques. Jérôme Million, Grenoble.

González Echegaray J. 1974. Pinturas y grabados de la cueva de Las Chimeneas (Puente Viesgo, Santander). Monografías de Arte Rupestre 2. Diputación Provincial de Barcelona, Barcelona.

González Morales M. R. & Moure A. 2008. Excavaciones y estudio de arte rupestre en la cueva de la Fuente del Salín (Muñorrodero,


Val de San Vicente). Campaña de 2000. In: Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Cantabria 2000-2003, pp. 79-82. Consejería de Cultura, Turismo y Deporte del Gobierno de Cantabria, Santander.

González Sainz C. 1999. Algunos problemas actu-ales en la ordenación cronológica del arte pale-olítico en Cantabria. In: I Encuentro de Historia de Cantabria, pp. 149-166. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cantabria, Santander.

González Sainz C. & Balbín R. 2010. La Pasiega. In B. Malpelo & I. Castanedo (eds): Las Cuevas con Arte Paleolítico en Cantabria, pp. 191-204. Asociación Cántabra para la Defensa del Patrimonio Subterráneo, Santander.

Groenen M., Groenen M. C., Ceballos del Moral J. M. & Gonzalez Echegaray J. 2012. Bilan de sept années de recherches dans la grotte ornée d’El Castillo (Cantabrie, Espagne). In Clottes J. (ed): Pleistocene art of the World, pp. 145-163. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénée, LXV-LXVI.

Henry-Gambier D., Beauval C., Airvaux J., Aujoulat N., Baratin J. F. & Buisson-Catil J. 2007. New hominid remains associated with gravettian parietal art (Les Garennes, Vilhonneur, France). J. Hum. Evol., 53: 747-750.

Jordá F. & Sanchidrián J. L. 1992. La Cueva de Maltravieso. Editora Regional de Extremadura, Mérida.

Leroi-Gourhan A. 1965. Préhistoire de lárt occi-dental. Mazenod, Paris.

Lorblanchet M. 1981. Fréquentation humaine et animale de la grotte de Pech-Merle, Cabrerets (Lot). In: La Préhistoire du Quercy dans le con-texte de Midi-Pyrénées, pp. 210-222. Société Préhistorique Française, Paris.

Lorblanchet M. 1995. Les grottes ornées de la Préhistoire. Nouveaux regards. Errance, Paris.

Lorblanchet M. 2010. Art pariétal. Grottes ornées du Quercy. Rouergue, Rodez.

Lorblanchet M., Cahier H. & Valladas H. 1995. Datation des chevaux ponctués du Pech-Merle. INORA, 12: 2-3.

Moure A. & González Sainz C. 2000. Cronología del arte paleolítico cantábrico: últimas

aportaciones y estado actual de la cuestión. 3º Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular vol. 2, Paleolítico da Península Ibérica, pp. 461-473. ADECAP, Oporto.

Pettit P., Bahn P. & Züchner C. 2009. The Chauvet conundrum: are claims for the birthplace of art pre-mature? In P. Bahn (ed): An Enquiring Mind, pp. 253-278. American School Prehistoric Research Monograph series, Peabody Museum, Harvard.

Pettitt P. & Pike A. W. G. 2007. Dating European cave art: progress, prospects, problems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14: 27-47.

Pike A. W. G., Gilmour M., Pettitt P. B., Jacobi R., Ripoll S., Bahn P. & Muñoz F. 2005. Verification of the age of the Palaeolithic cave art at Creswell Crags, UK. J. Archaeol. Sci., 32: 1649-1655.

Pike A. W. G., Hoffmann D.L., García-Diez M., Pettitt P., Alcolea J., Balbín R. de, González Sainz C., Heras C. de las, Lasheras J.A., Montes R. & Zilhao J. 2012. Useries dating of Paleolithic art in 11 caves in Spain. Science, 336: 1409-1413.

Pigeaud R. & Primault J. 2006. La grotte ornée du Moulin de Laguenay (Lissac-sur-Couze, Corrèze). Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, 13: 37-48.

Ripoll E. 1972. La cueva de Las Monedas en Puente Viesgo (Santander). Monografías de Arte Rupestre 1. Diputación Provincial de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Ripoll S., Ripoll E. & Collado H. 1999. Maltravieso. El santuario extremeño de las manos. Memorias 1. Museo de Cáceres, Mérida.

Snow D. R. 2006. Sexual dimorphism in Upper Palaeolithic hand stencils. Antiquity, 80: 390-404.

Valladas H., Cahier H. & Arnold M. 1990. Application de la datation C14 en spectromé-trie de masse par accélérateur aux grottes ornées de Cougnac et du Pech-Merle (Lot). In: Étude des pigments des grottes ornées paléolithiques du Quercy, pp. 93-143. Bulletin de la Société des Études du Lot 2.

Valladas H., Tisnerat N., Arnold M., Évin J. & Oberlin C. 2001. Les dates des fréquentations. In J. Clottes (ed): La grotte Chauvet. L’Art des origines, pp. 32-34. Seuil, Paris.

www.isita-org.com


Valladas H., Tisnerat N., Cachier H., Arnold M., Bernaldo de Quiros F., Cabrera V., Clottes J., Courtin J., Fortea J., Gonzalez Sainz C. & Moure A. 2001. Radiocarbon AMS dates for Paleolithic cave paintings. Radiocarbon, 43/2B: 977-986.

Valladas H. 2003. Direct radiocarbon dating of prehistoric cave paintings by accelerator mass spectrometry. Meas. Sci. Technol., 14: 1487-1492.

Valladas H., Kaltnecker E., Quiles A., Tisnérat-Laborde N., Genty D., Arnold M., Delqué-Kolic E., Moreau C., Baffier D., Cleyet-Merle J. J., Clottes J., Girard M., Monney J., Montes R., Sainz C. Sanchidrián J. L. & Simonnet R. 2013. Dating French and Spanish prehistoric decorated caves in their archaeological contexts. Radiocarbon, 55: 1422-1431.

Verbrugge A. R. 1969. Le symbole de la main dans la Préhistoire. Nouvelle édition, revue & aug-mentée, Bélgica.

Zilhão J. 2007. The emergence of ornaments and art: an archaeological perspective on the origins of “behavioural modernity”. J. Archaeol. Res., 15: 1-54.

Zilhão J. 2011. The emergence of language, art and symbolic thinking. A Neandertal test of competing hypotheses. In Henshilwood Ch. & dÉrrico F. (eds) : Homo symbolicus. The dawn of language, imagination and spirituality, pp. 111-131. John Benjamin Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

Associate Editor, Markus Bastir

This work is distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0

Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/


ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE

CONTEXT OF AGE MEASUREMENT

MOTIF YEARS BP YEARS CALBP (2 SIGMA)

YEARS AGO

Cosquer Radiocarbon pigment date (AMS)

Black hand (MR7)

27110±430 32563-30933


Black hand (MR7)

27110±400 32439-30956


Black hand (MR7)

26180±370 31284-30310


Black hand (M12)

24840±340 30441-28861


Black hand (M12)

23150±620 29365-26529 (93.2%)

26516-26304 (2.2%)


Black hand (M19)

27740±410 33051-31273

Fuente del Salín Radiocarbon pigment date (AMS)

Black hand 18200±70 22097-21435

El Castillo Age of overlying calcite (U-series)

Red hand (frieze F)

37630±340


Red hand (frieze F)

25024±290


Red hand (friezeG)

24340±120


Red hand (frieze G)

22260±110


Red hand (frieze G)

20810±120

Labattut Age of deposit containing fallen block with the motif

Black hand ~26500/~23500 ~29500/~25500

El Castillo Date for overlying motif (AMS)

Black bison (18a)

12620±110 15425-15384 (0.7%)

15247-14174 (94.7%)

Appendix - Summary of the chronological information available for European Palaeolithic hand motifs.

www.isita-org.com


ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE



YEARS AGO


Black bison(18a)

13060±200 16659-15.077


Black bison(18a)

13520±130 16967-16024 (94.7%)

16016-15975 (0.7%)


Black bison(18b)

12910±180 16543-14842 (95%)

14837-14801 (0.4%)

Chauvet Date for underlying motif (AMS)

Black mamut

26340±330 31330-30435

Pech-Merle Date for underlying motif (AMS)

Black horse

24640±390 30310-28560

Gargas Spatially associated archaeology

Bone in natural

crack

26860±460 32265-30539

Pech-Merle Spatially associated archaeology

Charcoal from floor

11380±390 14229-12518 (95%)

12488-12425 (0.4%)

Pech-Merle Spatially associated archaeology

Bone from floor

18400±350 23210-23146 (0.6%)

22974-21170 (94,8%)

Arcy Spatially associated archaeology

Bone from floor

26700±410 31755-30495

Chauvet Spatially associated archaeology

Bone from floor

26360±290 31314-30499

Chauvet Spatially associated archaeology

Bone from floor

26250±280 31247-30447

Moulin de Laguenay Spatially associated archaeology

Charcoal from

hearth

26770±380 31765-30611

Appendix - Summary of the chronological information available for European Palaeolithic hand motifs (continued).


ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE



YEARS AGO

Les Garennes Spatially associated archaeology

Human bone

27110±210 31643-31109

Les Garennes Spatially associated archaeology

Human bone

26790±190 31439-31008

Fuente del Salín Spatially associated archaeology

Charcoal from

hearth

22580±100 27815-26792


Charcoal from

hearth

22340+510-480 28209-25600


Bone from floor

23190+900 30195-25910

Morin Mobiliary art parallel

~13000/~12000 ~15000/~13500

Appendix - Summary of the chronological information available for European Palaeolithic hand motifs (continued).

Date post:	01-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhthien
View:	220 times
Download:	1 times

The chronology of hand stencils in European Palaeolithic rock art ...

Documents